just a small followup re timing I've said most of what I have to say on
this issue
--On 11. desember 2004 10:59 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think getting this into wider community review, i.e. due to
LC, is a good thing to do at this point, even while some of
us, mys
--On Saturday, 11 December, 2004 12:58 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed.
>
> But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a
> problem as long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the
> 02-bis you refer to) is different i
--On fredag, desember 10, 2004 18:26:08 -0500 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald,
This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of
the note below and the general support your suggestion has
gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called
is not draft-ie
Hi Avri and John,
I interpreted Harald's note differently than you did...
I took this part:
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
to send out the Last Call today as planned without settling
this issue.
To mean that Harald is _not_ starting the IETF Last Call as scheduled.
Hi,
I agree it does seem procedurally a little skewed.
But in thinking about it, I feel that this may not end up a problem as
long as one thing happens. That is, if -03 (the 02-bis you refer to)
is different in any substantive manner, i.e. other then editorial, it
will need to go through a seco
Harald,
This is purely a procedural question, but my interpretation of
the note below and the general support your suggestion has
gotten is that the document that is actually being last-called
is not draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt, as identified in the Last
Call posted yesterday afternoon, but a hypot
